Denier b_gone in #25053: "Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air."This is absolutely wrong ... This evidence informs the world of the craziness of b_gone.WHOA .. "Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air." [b_gone]

And yet he thinks it necessary to continually remind us that he's not a scientist. I doubt that anyone has mistaken him for one. If they ever did, that last one surely corrected their misconception.

Kyle, of course one CO2 molecule behaves like any other; I dispute attributing 100% of the CO2 increase to man, not the effect of a man made vs a naturally emitted molecule of CO2.As the oceans warm, they emit CO2 like a soda can going flat as it warms. Oceans, mountains and latitude cause climate, not man.Some of the dissolved oceanic carbon is from the same fossil sources as fossil fuel. Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air.Don't panic, without CO2, life as we know it would be impossible.

I'm keeping my individual replies short to make it all that more obvious when you evade your many refutations. Deal with this immediately or concede it:

I did not claim that 100% of CO2 was anthropogenic - nice straw man, a-hole. But I have posted the science that proves to anyone with a brain that we can absolutely know by multiple cross-checking methods, based upon fundamental scientific principles, that damn near 100% of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic!

I've had to repeat it becuase you DISHONESTLY evaded it the first time. Now you have DISHONESTLY repeated your UNSUPPORTED claim that we don;t know this while failing to acknowledge the ACTUAL SCIENCE yet again.

Deal with it. Deal with it now or concede the point, you insufferable douche nozzle.

<quoted text>I'm keeping my individual replies short to make it all that more obvious when you evade your many refutations. Deal with this immediately or concede it:I did not claim that 100% of CO2 was anthropogenic - nice straw man, a-hole. But I have posted the science that proves to anyone with a brain that we can absolutely know by multiple cross-checking methods, based upon fundamental scientific principles, that damn near 100% of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic!I've had to repeat it becuase you DISHONESTLY evaded it the first time. Now you have DISHONESTLY repeated your UNSUPPORTED claim that we don;t know this while failing to acknowledge the ACTUAL SCIENCE yet again.Deal with it. Deal with it now or concede the point, you insufferable douche nozzle.

So, Lyin' Brian, though you're far too dishonest to ever admit it, I've presented the science that refutes every BS (and often hilarious) excuse you've proffered for denying that excess GHG's are man's doing. You've been evasive and grossly dishonest and generally conceded in every dishonest fashion imaginable, so i accept that concession.

"excess GHG's are man's doing" What's that mean, "pollution is man made"? We are part of nature, our CO2 emissions is reemission of solar powered fossil carbon fuel. I don't think CO2 is a problem, there are other molecules that are problems, CO2 is life.

.

Kyle wrote:

Now, let me explain for the rational people some rather simple facts that prove that it's impossible for the warming to be caused by anything other than the GHE:First, an analogy. If you turn up the fire in an oven, the inside of the oven gets warmer. So does the outside. This is analogous to global warming induced by orbital mechanics or solar cycles. Deniers love to toss out these things; anything but GHG's as the actual cause of GW. You know, the "I'm smarter than a million PHD's" syndrome, explainable only by the Dunning-Krueger Effect. Well here's super-simple evidence that any moron can understand that refutes all such claims.

That's just argument to authority, another logical fallacy. Why not cite a compelling experimental test if you want, or we could discuss one previously posted.

.

Kyle wrote:

If you increase the insulation around your oven, the inside also gets warmer, but the outside gets cooler. This is analogous to GW induced by the GHE. We have been measuring the temperature of the upper atmosphere from satellites with exquisite precision for many years, using instruments that are based upon fundamental physical principles that make them self-diagnostic. In other words, their output is as close to metaphysically correct as anything in science. What do they show? The upper atmosphere is cooling. QED.

CO2 is in the upper atmosphere too, not as much but more thanks to our CO2 emissions. The upper atmosphere is supposed to warm because of greenhouse warming, but the models are wrong.

Because there are no experimental tests.

.

Kyle wrote:

If that's not enough for you, consider that the upper atmosphere contracts when it cools far more than the dense lower atmosphere expands as it warms. Thus the limits of the atmosphere have contracted closer to the Earth - a LOT. Easily measurable. In fact, it's been taken into account when predicting the decay of satellite orbits.

A new carbon tax would harm our economy and insult our intelligence.

.

Kyle wrote:

Just for overkill that only Lyin' Brian would DENY, here's three more simple ways that we know the warming is caused by the GHE:Climate science (and the common sense stemming from the basic intuitive physics of a moderately intelligent child) tells us that GHE warming would be greater at night, in the winter, and near the poles.

And more of it would be better than less. It's good to light your houselamp, warm your home, cool your perishables, transport goods and cook your food with fossil fuel, dependable and inexpensive.

.

Kyle wrote:

Al three are in evidence in spades. The fractions of a degree of globalized anomalies make it easier for denier scum and dumb people to dismiss the science. However, temps near the poles in mid-winter (whihc is also middle of the night when above the Arctic circle) are many degrees warmer. I read recently that such a temperature from an island weather station shows a 10.7degF increase.

Climate always changes; don't panic.

.

Kyle wrote:

So, Lyin' Brian, how are you going to DENY the logic above? how are you going to DENY 10+ degree changes? Hmmm?

I'll not deny +20 degree changes, or less. Climate always changes. Does it mean man made CO2 is the cause? No, there's no experimental data.

"A troll wants to cause a commotion and get people ranting and raving because they want their presence on a forum or comments thread to be the main focus. They want the spotlight and attention on them.

Often they will play devils advocate, vigorously defending statements or positions they know to be illogical or untrue in an attempt to get people riled up."

Do you think you fooled anyone when you quoted me, but then followed each quote with a non-responsive, off the wall, denier BS, bumper sticker slogan, fallacy? I think you've embarrassed yourself and the entire denial industry more than sufficiently for one thread. I'm doing what I had every right to do several days ago. I'm accepting my total victory and moving on.

In the future, anyone looking for undeniable evidence that you're maximally intellectually dishonest and that you've effectively conceded every single retarded denier argument, need only link to the these last few pages of this thread.

Just your last post can stand alone as a towering example of your implosion. It's especially egregious as I had just predicted exactly what you would do. Denier scum are do predictable:

"And please folks, dont give any credibility to a pig like Lyin Brian.

And now, because we know that Lyin' Brian is fully capable of dishonestly ignoring refutations both in bulk and singularly, I will repost the science that he refuses to acknowledge.He will refuse to acknowledge it again.

Or possibly, he will acknowledge it, and then proceed to excrete a foul melange of fallacies, misdirection, and hand-waving nonsense.Which will, of course, no matter which tack he takes, illustrate that Lyin' Brian is anti-science, anti-reality, intellectually dishonest, grossly dishonest in general, and not here to get to the truth but to promote what he knows to be lies."

He could, theoretically, acknowledge these refutations and deal with them in an honest manner, but I hereby swear that I'll donate my entire net worth to the Koch brothers and commit suicide if he actually does that.

Thanks for playing, Lyin' Brian. You science deniers never let me down. In the past, I've especially enjoyed taking advantage of the pathologies of creatards, but they're so last decade. I think I'll concentrate on discrediting your brand of anti-science for a while. Besides, even though creationism is the gateway drug of science denial for many, it just doesn't have the same danger as climate denial.

If we meet again, don't let me down. Keep at it until any onlooker knows beyond question that you're thoroughly dishonest and utterly lacking in valid arguments. Good day.

[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"] Greenland's not melting. I've seen it myself[/QUOTE]

From 36,000 feet with cloud cover, but no equipment(not even binoculars?), you're not making scientific observations. That's OK. You're not a scientist. But you are a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND 4-time alleged & 4-time proud threatener.

Your erroneous post matches your errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, & 73 million TIMES......... only more so. Over 2.5 trillion tons are missing from Greenland in the last 10 years.......

When dirtling, earthling has no brain,'eart hling(alien has no affinity for Earth)' was around,'lyin' brian), with its errors of as much as 1 million TIMES, was small pototoes to dirtling's error of 500 million TIMES. Jealous,'lyin' brian' then popped an error of 73 million TIMES. Still not as great as dirtling's 500 million TIMES, but 'lyin' brian' gave a good effort.

But now, with dirtling gone(6 months?),'lyin' brian' dumps an error of 2.5+ trillion TIMES,~35,000 TIMES more than its error of 73 million times. I knew that 'lyin' brian' could beat dirtling...... & dirtling never got its hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

Very good,'lyin' brian'...... you live up to your name,'lyin' brian'. I'm glad I adopted it from Kyle.

<quoted text>"excess GHG's are man's doing" What's that mean, "pollution is man made"? We are part of nature, our CO2 emissions is reemission of solar powered fossil carbon fuel. I don't think CO2 is a problem, there are other molecules that are problems, CO2 is life..<quoted text>That's just argument to authority, another logical fallacy. Why not cite a compelling experimental test if you want, or we could discuss one previously posted..<quoted text>CO2 is in the upper atmosphere too, not as much but more thanks to our CO2 emissions. The upper atmosphere is supposed to warm because of greenhouse warming, but the models are wrong.Because there are no experimental tests..<quoted text>A new carbon tax would harm our economy and insult our intelligence..<quoted text>And more of it would be better than less. It's good to light your houselamp, warm your home, cool your perishables, transport goods and cook your food with fossil fuel, dependable and inexpensive..<quoted text>Climate always changes; don't panic..<quoted text>I'll not deny +20 degree changes, or less. Climate always changes. Does it mean man made CO2 is the cause? No, there's no experimental data.

Sure, burning is "natural", all living creatures destroy chemicals to exist.. Poor Brain Gone, when you get to China, they'll destroy you for having no value...

<quoted text>The upper atmosphere is supposed to warm because of greenhouse warming, but the models are wrong.

You've read the LIE. Now read the SCIENCE:

----------

"The sky IS falling"

 gavin @ 26 November 2006

A timely perspective article in Science this week addresses the issues of upper atmosphere change.Upper atmosphere here is the stratosphere up to the ionosphere (~20 to 300 km). Latovi&#269;ka et al point out that cooling trends are exactly as predicted by increasing greenhouse gas trends, and that the increase in density that this implies is causing various ionspheric layers to fall. This was highlighted a few years back by Jarvis et al (1998) and in New Scientist in 1999 (and I apologise for stealing their headline!).

The changes in the figure are related to the cooling seen in the lower stratospheric MSU-4 records (UAH or RSS), but the changes there (~ 15-20 km) are predominantly due to ozone depletion. The higher up one goes, the more important the CO2 related cooling is. Its interesting to note that significant solar forcing would have exactly the opposite effect (it would cause a warming) yet another reason to doubt that solar forcing is a significant factor in recent decades.

----------

Google any unique phrase, then follow the links to the peer-reviewed SCIENCE. Lyin' Brian's concession is accepted.

You've read the LIE. Now read the SCIENCE. Is he narrowly correct? Yes. Is it an argument for our CO2 emissions being harmless because they're "natural"? Of course not; quite the opposite:

----------

The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago. At the time, the land was covered with swamps filled with huge trees, ferns and other large leafy plants. The water and seas were filled with algae. Some deposits of coal were deposited during the late Cretaceous Period (90-65 million years ago), but the main deposits of fossil fuels are from the Carboniferous Period.

Most commercially important petroluem deposits formed from organic materials laid down in shallow seas during two periods approximately 160 million and 90 million years ago, each lasting several million years.

----------

If we approximate the time period over which solar energy was stored in the form of organic molecules that are now fossil fuels at 100 million years (conservative), and that we are currently releasing this energy (and converting the C to CO2 in the process) at a rate that would consume all of the original fossil fuel reserves in 1000 yrs (conservative), then we are (conservatively) releasing C into the atmosphere 100,000 times faster than it was removed.

An analogy - throughout a 70 yr lifespan, a person will receive a large dose of natural radiation from radioactive elements in nature, solar radiation, and cosmic rays. Therefore, there's no problem with subjecting a person to 14,286 times as much radiation over their lifetime or, alternatively, subjecting them to the same amount of radiation in less than 43 hours.

That's what Lyin' Brian would have you believe - if you were RETARDED enough.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.